[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: scary ext2 filesystem question
    Kurt Garloff <> writes:
    > On Fri, Dec 25, 1998 at 11:42:57AM -0500, Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
    > > _Practical File System Design_, Dominic Giampaolo, p. 36
    > Nonsense!
    > The ext2fs uses write cacheing, like any powerful filesystem does.
    > This cannot confuse any program. Any program that reads data from the disk
    > goes through the page cache, so it get's the recent data, whether it was
    > written to disk yet, or not yet. It is guaranteed to be written to disk
    > sometime, thats what bdflush/update and kswapd are for. Un unmounting the fs
    > all buffers are flushed, even if you managed to kill your bdflush before.

    That's exactly what I was thinking.

    Obviously, if [any] computer system crashes, bad things can happen.
    That was not my point of confusion; rather, I was bewildered because
    the author seemed to be implying that these kinds of problems could
    occur *even during normal filesystem operation*. I couldn't figure
    out how that could be, unless it was due to some kind of bug in the
    caching code, not a flaw in the design of the filesystem.

    > I noted the name of the author in my ignore list ... obviuosly he did not
    > understand anything!

    I'm inclined to agree, especially since elsewhere he refers to ext2 as
    "the fast and unsafe grandchild" of FFS.

    Mirian Crzig Lennox Systems Anarchist
    "There's a New World Order coming every minute.
    Make mine extra cheese."

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.019 / U:4.608 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site